(Tell 'em) Shove It

22/8/2017

Vol 12, Issue 5

TILLY HOUGHTON

During the obligatory call home to Mama and Papa this weekend, Dad asked me if I was enrolled to vote. I said yes, and asked, knowing full well what the answer would be, what his vote would be.

“No, obviously.”

I've been out to my parents for close to a decade. When I did tell them, it was after a Pride rally, and in tears, I told my mum first. She was, and always has been, completely fine—bar some concern about the discrimination I would face in life. Dad, being a Catholic so staunch that he believes that George Pell is being slandered by the left wing media, warned me “not to shove it down people's throats.”

In the spirit of attempting to understand that people are idiosyncratic and complex, and that their opinions may cause harm without them meaning for it to be so, I asked him not “Why,” but “What has been an era with social cohesion and equality?” His answer was the 1950s.

See, back then, people valued the family. People valued togetherness and community. Identity politics and political correctness were but distant abstract concepts with no meaningful weight to add to public discourse. I noted that gay people did exist and, thinking of Alan Turing (who was chemically castrated because his sexuality was deemed ‘gross indecency’ under British law of the day), were subjugated in nearly every aspect of their existence.

“No, they just existed and nobody minded. They weren't making the scenes they are today. The gays didn't even want marriage. They wanted to disband marriage. But now they want to destroy marriage from the inside.”

Call him an isolated example on the fringes—one who will never be convinced through any amount of campaigning or persuasion—but it is an example of the logic from the ‘No’ voters. Call me a cynic, but I'm not actually convinced that LGBTIQ people are as accepted as the wider metropolitan public would like to believe (if you don’t believe me, I invite you to walk down Sydney Rd holding the hand of someone who shares your gender). When we say that we need to reason with the other side, and win the fight through the strength of persuasion, I’ve no need to wonder at whose expense this will be. LGBTIQ elders are astounding in how much work they have done for this community, but for those in rural areas, or with religious parents, or who are yet to come out (or all of the above, as was my case), this plebiscite will be horrendous.

No, we didn't reach where we are today without a longstanding campaign to win over hearts and minds, as one anonymous De Minimis commenter wrote last week. But we sure as shit didn't get here by politely asking, either. Before Stonewall, there was the Mattachine society. After the AIDS crisis (let us never forget that it was once deemed ‘gay cancer’) there was ACT UP. In this country, systemic homophobia saw many of the deaths caused by gay-hate bashings across major cities go unprosecuted by police, and ignored by the wider public. It is, quite frankly, ahistorical rubbish to hold the view that, with regards to the LGBTIQ community, ours were rights that gradually shifted over time by patiently listening to bigotry and using logic and reason to combat it. Everything we have now is the result of an unimaginable amount of pain and anger; ultimately, it is because of the refusal of those before us to stay in the margins.

Sure, people will vote yes. People will vote no. A larger majority than I think we realise will abstain from voting at all, and in the midst of this, the underlying conclusion is that ours is a Parliament that cannot act as it has been prescribed to do. It is supposed that it is the ‘will of the people’ embodied in the election of our executives, and yet each government has failed to take any meaningful action in spite of the fact that a wide majority of Australians support Marriage Equality (though I have my doubts). Contrast that with the ease in which Howard’s amendment to the Marriage Act managed to pass through, and perhaps you’ll understand why I am wary at best about the results of this plebiscite—if it goes ahead at all. Equality takes time—but for a near-decade of rallying, engaging Parliamentarians, and arguing against proponents, I’ve finished tolerating poor logic that I’m expected to brush off with ease. If an aspect of my identity is to be politicised in this way, then I will abso-fucking-lutely appeal with emotion, as well as reason. I owe my current ability to hold hands with my girlfriend in public to trans women throwing bricks at cops—not from trying to convince Turnbull that I’m Just Like Him.

Tilly Houghton is a second-year JD student who isn't so much 'Okay to be Gay' as she is 'Seize the Means of Production and while you're at it, do it covered in glitter’

More articles like this:

The rest of this issue:

Great article Tilly

22/8/2017 07:46:40 pm

This is a great article

"It is, quite frankly, ahistorical rubbish to hold the view that, with regards to the LGBTIQ community, ours were rights that gradually shifted over time by patiently listening to bigotry and using logic and reason to combat it. Everything we have now is the result of an unimaginable amount of pain and anger; ultimately, it is because of the refusal of those before us to stay in the margins."

I agree with the sentiment of this but I think it glosses on the point a bit much. Cultural attitudes and patient debate are always necessary to a degree in western democracy and thankfully western democracy has been flexible enough that both discourse and raw shows of strength have combined to improve community attitudes

Eugene Twomey

22/8/2017 07:55:57 pm

Fantastic article Tilly, thanks for sharing. I hope you know that a lot of us support you and hate the sort of predjudice you have to deal with.

For the rest of the student body, these next few weeks are probably a good time to be kind to each other. Lots of our fellow students are going to be under some additional stress as the campaign progresses, and I hope the law school can be a place for them to relax and be supported.

Christine T

23/8/2017 01:14:27 pm

I quite needed to hear this, thank you.

Thanks Tilly and thanks Eugene, from a rather emotionally fatigued fellow student.

Scott

22/8/2017 10:07:15 pm

It's true that the history of granting LGBT rights is not one merely of conversation, but also spiked with militant activism. But I think it's problematic to conclude that "successful" violence in the past justifies its future use.

Violent riots in the past, leading to awareness and social change, occurred not because they were desirable, but because they were necessary. We're talking about decades where homosexual conduct was not even legal. We currently live in a society where there is a majority of support, not just for homosexuality but gay marriage (although I share the suspicion for how great this majority is). My article was an expression that we now no longer require violence to effect the kind of change we would like to see in society. It was not suggesting that we politely respect the views of opponents - if anything, it was that we should criticise their views relentlessly. But it should be their views, not them as people.

I share the concern of the wellbeing of vulnerable people. But I do not see an alternative; controversial debates with damaging impacts rage on with or without the plebiscite. We cannot subvert our societal replacement of violence with conversation by professing "I am morally right, so my violence is too". This just gives cover to e.g. Christians who believe they are justified in behaving as uncivilly as they like to achieve their goals.

My presumption is that you're not suggesting throwing bricks at the ACL. Nonetheless I think we shouldn't romanticise violence in the past, and apply it to an altogether different society. But perhaps you don't think the current legal and social protections afforded to LGBT people are sufficient to justify relying on the system, I think that's certainly up for debate.

Shutdown the bigots

23/8/2017 12:45:28 am

@ Scott

You have not defined "militant activism" and you proceed to equate this term only with a vague word 'violence'.

Militant activism can encompass a wide range of activities, as Tilly outlined. From organised civil disobedience, to the act of throwing a brick after Stonewall Inn was raided by police. The historical reality was that LGBT people were routinely harassed, beaten and humiliated by the police at Stonewall- one of a handful of places they could go. As an act of self-defence, it catalysed a much wider social revolt for LGBT rights - something, I presume, you support.

Some people have no economic or other interest in LGBTI equality, and actually benefit from a society organised upon ideas of inequality. Others do not.
Being able to identify who does, and does not, is an important for effectively challenging- and changing- ideas in society.

Tilly makes a great point- perhaps one you missed due to your own moral anxiety with an abstracted caricature of 'violence' - the ones entrusted, through the democratic process have failed to act on this matter. Bigots, sitting in parliament, have refused to recognise that others with a different sexual orientation are equal. The PM refuses to challenge them because of his poor political position, opening the door for bigoted ideas, and legitimising those who have held them so tightly.

I believe the polls that show the overwhelming popularity of SSM marriage. I think the survey will be a resounding yes vote.

We may not have needed any bricks this time, but this depends on if the parliamentarian bigots are willing to get out of the way of this reform. Safe to say, no one will rely on you to throw the first one, but we know from history there are others we can rely on.

Historical revisionism.

23/8/2017 08:49:40 pm

"I owe my current ability to hold hands with my girlfriend in public to trans women throwing bricks at cops"

No you don't. Nobody ever said 'oh shit that trans woman threw a brick at some cops, better decriminalise homosexuality I guess'

Start throwing bricks at cops today, maybe go one better and throw a Molotov cocktail or two two at a church, and watch how quickly the public will turn against your agenda.

Historical Record

24/8/2017 08:43:18 am

Do you mean the 'gay agenda'?!

Comments are closed.